Butting Heads For Banksy

The man at hand is famed British graffiti artist Banksy, known for his high profile murals and political stencil work across the Western world. Many consider him to be an archetype of modern guerilla art and many others call him a vandalizing menace to society. Today, these two authors will be the judge.

The first author basically states in the thesis that Banksy is a breath of fresh air in the modern art world and that although it's considered highly controversial, his work is something to be admired by the art community. This contrasts to the other article in that the other focuses primarily on the fact that his work is vandalism and it should be frowned upon whether or not it has intrinsic political messages. They both use his sculptures and more dangerous pieces as evidence of their claims. The main difference is that one finds it morally acceptable and the other finds it morally wrong.

The opposing article is more opinion-based while the supporting article is more formal and written more as a critical review in a paper instead of as an opinion article. The opposing one uses beliefs on the final say of the law as a tool to paint Banksy as a criminal and the supportive emphasizes beauty and meaning to justify the illegal nature of his work. They both make their claims meaningful by showing the mainstream support they have on each side of the issue. This just further goes to show how split the public is on Banksy and how interesting of an artist he is to our 21st century culture.

Both positions have good points, but I find that the opposing article lacks the background information necessary to prove their points compared to the supportive which has two references to statistics and a quote by famous graffiti artist, Futura. My opinion between the two articles is not only that the Banksy-supportive article is more validated, but that the overall ideas of the supportive article make more sense than the opposing article which, although scholarly, only is able to use legality as a tool and not other options available like saying Banksy is too offensive for the public, that the murals distract drivers on the road, or that it tells other advertisers that they don't need to pay to have their messages brandished outright in public.

I would say that they relate perfectly to my blog's audience because they both touch on the issue of perception. Some of us perceive the law to be the most sacred ruling of morals and some of us perceive the rest of the world to be the most important judge of ethics. I believe these assumptions are appropriate because they lean more towards inferences than assumptions.

Banksy May Be Skilled, But He's No Boxer

After reading a certain interesting blog post on Banksy and the graffiti culture as a whole, I have reflected on what the blogger said about the inclusion of graffiti as a form of art and the differences he finds between the two. He brings up an interesting point of discussion on art as a means of expression and uses an odd, but beneficial nonetheless, example of intention versus interpretation. Overall, I have to say I agree with pretty much most of what he says and believe that Banksy’s graffiti is in fact art. This is because I find myself feeling the same sentiments that he does towards the roundabout characteristics of art that graffiti undoubtedly encompasses.

Marksaid, a well-known “wordpress” site done by Mark Mapstone and the blog which I happen to be writing about, immediately starts by asking the reader this question: “Is graffiti art?” To which Mark replies back with the question, “What’s the difference between graffiti and art?” The only way to answer this, he finds, is by determining just what art is. He finds it to be based on three things: the intention of the creator, the interpretation of the views, and the expression involved with the process.

I, on the other hand, think art is also defined by having to be in some manner physical. I see art as having to be somewhat of a physical nature because I feel like art is something that needs to be seen, whereas poetry and prose are things that need to be read, and music is something that needs to be heard. Other than that, I do agree that art is defined once the intention and expression have been identified. The interpretation, however, I think is not necessary in defining something as art as much as it is to define something as a certain type of art. For instance, when Banksy put a blowup doll dressed in Guantanamo Bay clothing in Disneyland, it was art as soon as he started doing it and had the intention. It was not until a few minutes later, when everyone witnessed it and was shocked, that it became a piece of guerilla art.

When he states, “Graffiti is a form of expression with intention open to interpretation which equals: art.” I agree with him but I find that we have come to the same conclusion from different trails of explanation. I find that graffiti is a form of expression with intention that can be interpreted as art, but it does not have to be. For instance, say that I walk up to a random person on the street and push them to the ground as hard as I can because I happen to be mad. It is open to interpretation, because you cannot stop interpretation from happening, so does that make it art? I find that the answer to that is simply no. No it is not art. This is because I think Mark is missing a piece of the puzzle called action. I believe that action is what separates Banksy from Joe Frazier. One expresses himself through political graffiti on walls and government property and one expresses himself through action. Nice, bloody, cable-ready action.

The True Meaning Behind The Wise Guan Yu

I'm here to talk about the Guan Yu sculpture I saw the other day; a piece done in honor of the the real Chinese general serving under Liu Bei who played a pivotal part in the collapse of the Han Dynasty along with the establishment of the Shu Han Kingdom of China. Originally done in the 1490's, this ancient piece is currently on display in the Ackland Art Museum. This Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) treasure not only defines traditional Chinese military culture but also reflects the art culture of China as a whole. The piece has three distinct features that give the viewer insight into its cultural meaning: the different colors used on the body, the stance and texture of the general, and the clothing type chosen to represent who Guan Yu was.

Guan Yu was known for being a brilliant military man, and after his execution in 219 by his enemies he was immortalized in the first great Chinese historical novel, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. He was immortalized in the same way a well-known statue immortalizes someone (whether it be Venus de Milo or Abraham Lincoln). That is why this statue means so much in its artistry: it paints a live picture of who he was and what he represented.

When colors are incorporated into a sculpture I feel it can either serve to add emotion lacking before or it can add emphasis onto parts more difficult to accentuate as meaningful parts, such as the hat being a slighter shade of green that the army wardrobe and the skin putting off a strong, golden hue. All the different colors used together in the sculpture give it the vintage feel of traditionalism and legend, while the tones of just gold give it a feeling of royalty while the pieces of green represent Ancient China's beliefs that green was the color of spring, balance wood (the material used for the piece), and the cardinal direction east, giving pride to the Eastern world for the works of this man.

The stance and texture of the sculpture have a lot to say in terms of power and position as well. Guan Yu stands from the chest down in a very traditional way, neither foot is pointing towards the thing he stares at and both legs run straight to the floor without bending, symbolizing his positivity in his balance. The upper body is modest yet unique, with the general's belly pointing outwards in disregard for manors, the hand placed back in typical East Asian fashion as if to say that this position is who he is, and the head glaring steadily and wisely at whatever the thing he stares at happens to be. In addition, the texture of the piece is balanced between smooth gold skin, the class of the garb he wears over his durable and tough military armor, and lastly the professionalism seen in the detailed pieces of leather on his shoes and belt and the real hair used on his face.

The clothing type is split between elite royalty and military prowess with a little hint of intellectualism. As the article describes, the robe is symbolic of the typical clothing of an official while the clothing we see underneath is clearly military combat armor and military boots. This alludes to the suggestion that he was both a highly valuable man in the elite class as well as a highly regarded man in the Chinese army. The other piece of clothing which gives us insight into his historical value is the hat on his head. The hat represents the cap of a scholar, which Guan Yu would have to be in order to have such mastery in the military: although, to include such a thing on a representation of whom Guan Yu was can lead us to believe he was very much smarter than the average man of military conquest.

As a whole, this sculpture might not be the most mind-blowing piece of art in terms of skill in my eyes, but just as our blog talks about, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the professionalism and meaning put into the piece definitely has more to be spoken of than if I had just passed this piece of fine Chinese art on a museum tour. In the end, Guan Yu is not someone who we can trust to be all the features listed, because after all, it is the victors who write the history books. We can, however, trust that this sculpture of him does to some degree give us Westerners perspective on just what the Eastern world admires: balance, intelligence, craft, valor, and grace.


Guan Yu. 1490s. Wood, lacquer and lacquer paste, polychrome and gold, leather and hair. The William A. Whitaker Foundation Art Fund, 95.2 Ackland Art Museum, Chapel Hill, NC.

George Bellows: Hidden Visionary of the Early Twentieth Century

Rain is literally the method that life today uses to maintain itself; rain supplies life with water and cleanses the earth. This is scientific fact, an observable phenomenon that is proven through objectivity and logic. However, George Bellows’ painting “After the Rain” conveys a much different meaning about the effects of precipitation. His image depicts a mildly forested coastline, distorted by fog, and darkened by the clouds looming over the mysterious and ominous landscape, which as implied by the title, has received rain. The purpose of the scene goes deeper than the physical reality of nature. Bellows use of realism creates a scene contrasting typical ideas about Earth’s natural processes. Through that, he compares the idea of fabricated human perception to reality, while using that perception to instigate introspective thought regarding certain aspects of society and life, which he represents through the various entities in the medium of nature.

One might assume that the inherent qualities of rain include clarity, cleanliness, and reinvigoration. These are, in some manner, true observations. On the contrary, one can observe that a rainstorm can be characterized by violence or disruption. The churned dirt, the turbulent ocean, and the sky is ominous, contrasting to the notion of cleansing and tranquility through rain that people generalize. This is the beginning of Bellows demonstration that compares what we observe to what is real.
The audience can see that Bellows wants the viewer to observe and focus on the morbid and gloomy aspects of his painting. This can be observed through Bellow’s use of dark, murky oil paints to illustrate and emphasize the grim environment that was created by the recent precipitation. The emphasis is to contrast the idea of a friendly and positive environment to a realistic and bleak one. In a broader sense, he wishes to pull the audience away from what is defined by humans and drive them to analyze a situation instantaneously. That is why the painting can be defined by impressionism, it asks the viewer to consider what the painting influences in the mind of the onlooker. The work aims to coagulate a relationship that disregards predispositions between the environment and the observer.

The ocean illustrated by Bellows reinforces the contrast he uses to characterize the rain. The sea appears dark, barren, and turbulent from the recent shower. Visibility across the waterfront is low because the air is clouded with fog. Perhaps the fog across the ocean is shrouding danger or even a purposeful opportunity from the audience. This lack of clarity provides insight to Bellows contrast. As people are not fully aware, or cannot see, how their presumptuous ideas are inhibiting them from seeing the world in its clearest and realistic form.

The trees in the scenery cement the dark imagery instilled by Bellows. They also preserve the theme of inhibited vision in that the wooded areas are thick and dingy, preventing the viewer from seeing what lies inside the forest. This earthwork of foliage makes it near impossible to distinguish where the ocean meets the land. It is through this technique that the piece utilizes a transfiguration from a three-dimensional world to a two-dimensional one in order to hide the waterfront. The shadowing and concealment of the shore advances Bellows connection between the fundamentally observable and reality.

The cliff that overlooks the ocean in the upper-right hand corner of Bellows’ painting is another method that he masquerades and transforms reality into a two-dimensional paradox. It is another area that, because of its three-dimensional characteristics, hides certain geographical areas. This, combined with the dense fog (densest in the picture) that the cliff overlooks, structures the observation complex even more. All of which implies that the cliff may be the highest point (implying it is the best vantage point), but it hardly gives the best view of the scenery.

Another observation of the cliff is the apparent lack of life. It is covered in dirt, churned by the rain, and bears no vegetation. The negative depiction of the cliff is perhaps Bellows’ critique of society. Those who are viewed as the highest on a social, economic, or moral scale do not necessarily reflect that in a realistic sense. Apply the observation complex discussed earlier; one may judge someone based on a fundamentally observable scale (social, economic, moral, etc.). In reality, this may or may not be true, as the person’s (in the instance of the picture, the environment’s) status could be much different than we perceive it. We now see that Bellows’ contrast was an allegory to human perception from a broad, and specific, point of view.
Bellows reasserts this idea through a horizontally symmetrical landscape (appears on the right 1/3), using the cliff, the trees, and the mud as his method of display. The symmetry is coordinated as followed: mud, trees, foliage, trees, mud. This may appear ludicrous at first, but when we take into account Bellows use of the cliff (as stated previously), it brings to light that the symmetry is used to compare the cliff (the “top” of society) as a reflection of the ground (the “bottom”). Both the cliff and the ground are similar in color and texture. So in a broader scheme, Bellows is depicting everyone, regardless of their artificial status, as equals.

The use of dirt is to remind to viewer that something that is viewed as crude or impure can actually be a beneficiary to life. Dirt is the means of provisions for plants; it holds water and nutrients that the plants need to survive. This argument coincides with the previous comparison in that someone, regardless of their “status”, has something to offer to the greater good of life. It establishes that there is a symbiotic relationship between everyone, regardless of position physically or aesthetically.

On the contrary the dirt has been churned into mud by the rain, creating yet another contrast. To understand this, we must compare inherent characteristics of society to the aspects of this painting again. The environment represents a generic population of people, and the rain is an unstoppable action with certain aftereffects. In the picture, the rain has disturbed a particular part of the population temporarily. Eventually, the population will settle, and the rain will have helped part of the population succeed (i.e. the trees growing). Even though the dirt receives no benefits (it actually suffers), it is an inherent characteristic of society, and nature, that a particular group will benefit or succeed at the cost of another party. This realistic perspective seems contrary to how many view the world today. Many think that the world can provide opportunity and grandeur to all. However, they fail to realize that this idea defies the natural and realistic principals that govern everything, despite humanities efforts.

The realistic approach Bellows uses in “After the Rain” is gloomy, bleak, and morbid. The themes he incorporates are disheartening, and uncover the flaws of man, as well as reveal the characteristics of nature. Despite all that, Bellows intentions are meant to be well. He wants to open peoples’ eyes and show them reality, to stop fabricating illusions in an attempt to optimize people’s hopes. In order to do this, he contrasted nature with humanity. With that method, he revealed the vast differences between human perception and reality, and used the contrast to provoke interrogative thought with respect to aspects of society and life.


Bellows, George. After the Rain. 1913. Oil on wood. Ackland Art Museum, Chapel HIll, NC.

*Could not find the painting online anywhere. Visit Ackland Art Museum where Bellows has a whole room next to the John Lawson exhibition

Don't Hate, Evaluate

Alex Grey’s collection “Sacred Mirrors” is a well-admired piece among contemporary artists and art critics. His work has illustrated and created a diagram that combines the physical anatomy of a human with spirituality. However, Leah Ollman does not empathize with Grey, or his colleagues, in her article “The Anatomy of an Artist: A Mind-Body-Spirit Cliché”. She argues that Grey’s work is too showy and shallow to be profound, and that his work is more of a parody than anything. Ollman uses faulty comparisons, closes her mind to the ideas Grey appeals to, and faisl to entangle the progression that Grey’s artwork is built upon, where one sees themself transcend from physical to spiritual form.

Her initial criticisms of Grey’s work come off as insulting as opposed to introspective, as she complains that the work is showy, artificial, and “an embarrassment of a show”. These “critiques” are shallow, and do not observe the paintings well. Grey’s work is hardly artificial and showy; many depict the anatomy of the human body to mirror the composition of the viewer. As the work progresses, we see he dissects the human anatomy in the paintings, and eventually turning the person into a representation of the aura of the spirit. The nature of his purpose (depicting the human spirit) is abstract, but not necessarily artificial, as the human spirit can be defined through science as well as metaphysics.

Ollman continues by creating a flawed contrast between Grey and William Blake. She states that Blake was a visionary, unlike Grey. The problem with this comparison is that Grey does not claim to be a visionary himself, only that his art is his envisioning of the soul. On a broader spectrum, it is impossible to compare any artist or “visionary”, as each has his or her own themes, motifs, and ideals. Even though Grey’s work may be similar to other “visionaries” from a general standpoint, he specifies his work through his unique style that encompasses the anatomy of a human. I have never witnessed anything like his work, which differentiates him from many other great visual artists.

Further into the paragraph, Ollman comments “[Greys’] paintings look more like the stunted offspring of fantasist Frank Frazetta and New Age guru Deepak Chopra (who helped sponsor the show)”. This slander misrepresents Grey’s work, as Frank Frazetta incorporates fantasy in his work while Grey uses realism and spirituality. The assertion also shows that Ollman may have a bias against spiritually motivated persons, as the insult mocks Deepak Chopra who is a world-renowned spiritual figure. With all that said, she has failed to analyze the purpose of Grey’s work and allowed her predispositions to inhibit her from a full comprehension of “Sacred Mirrors”.

In Ollman’s closing paragraphs, we see where her false justifications come from. She remarks that Grey’s work uses “Illustrative overkill” because the depicted rays, beams, and auras are exaggerated special effects. This exaggeration makes the work appear as a parody to Ollman, but the exaggeration is used by Grey to intensify the actions portrayed in the paintings. Ollman notes that the work integrates science fiction like characteristics, digressing Grey’s intended meaning into something else. Nevertheless, I do not see science fiction because the basis of the work is fundamentally realistic. The anatomization of the human body emphasizes and fully reinforces this motif in Grey’s work and discredits any fictitious themes.

Despite Ollman’s opposing argument, Grey’s work may appear to be overdeveloped, but it only is intended to add depth to the meaning. I find it intriguing that someone would write such a harassing and harsh criticism of Grey’s work, as if one cannot enjoy the theme, then one may enjoy the talent his hand. Through Ollman’s rhetoric and argument, one can observe that she is insulting to Grey, creates a faulty comparison to mock Grey’s abilities, and may have a bias against those seeking spiritual depth.


Ollman, Leah. "The Anatomy of an Artist: A Mind-Body-Spirit Cliche." LA Times [Los Angeles] 27 Apr. 1999, Art News and Reviews sec. Alex Grey. Web. 19 Apr. 2010.

*unfortunately I can't post "Sacred Mirrors" on the blog. If you like to view the peice, go to and go to 'paintings'

Going Great with Grey

Alex Grey's artwork diverges greatly from the normal contemporary art realm. Grey combines factual anatomy and his own portrayal of the human body using the spirituality instilled by his images. Both the articles "Grey's Anatomy" and "Stux gallery" agree on this statement, but their beliefs differ about the purpose and meaning of Grey's "Sacred Mirrors." Kenneth Baker, author of "Grey's Anatomy," believes that this collection focuses on realism and mortality while Carlo McCormick, author of "Stux Gallery," argues that the piece focuses on the depth of human nature and metaphysics. Each author uses physical indications from the artwork to elaborate on their interpretations of the pieces. Baker, however, uses shallow observations and generalizations to create his argument, making it structurally weaker. McCormick provides a clear, contextual argument through his unambiguous diction and lack of generalizations.

Baker’s argument is that Grey’s intentions in “Sacred Mirrors” are to examine the mortality of humans, which he justifies through the lack of flesh on many of the human portraits. He argues, “[the paintings] fool us for a moment into thinking we are looking at images of living persons” (Baker). He continues, claiming that the mirror technique and human anatomy created by the artwork inhibits the viewer from understanding Grey’s purpose. This may be true at first, but “Sacred Mirrors” is a sequential building from the human body to the spirit. Through the metamorphosis, we see human flesh transform into spirit, which is yet to be tangible in the real world.

Even though some of the images appear gruesome and morbid, the artwork is portraying the building of the human body and aura. McCormick’s argument is that the layering of the human flesh in Grey’s work is to show the depth of the human construction: the soul, and the sensuous flesh that sustains us. He states Grey’s paintings are based on his personal investigations of human nature where reality becomes far removed. It is described as, “a rigorously detailed account of the typically unseen.”(McCormick) This idea coincides with the progression of “Sacred Mirrors”, when the viewer is mirrored as a physical being, then transcends into a spiritual being (either as a spirit or a spiritual figure). This argument differs greatly from Baker’s, as it emphasizes the abstract ideas that appear in the paintings as opposed to the realistic ones.
Baker continues to assert the morbidity and realism shown in Grey’s drawings when he determines that one’s personal experience with morbidity enhances the credibility of their thoughts. Contrary to his belief, the experience one has with death only feed ideas contrary to the paintings’ meaning. “Sacred Mirrors” is the visualization of the development of humankind, not the demise or degradation of it. Baker’s argument is partially concluded through an interrogation, which questions the capabilities of Grey’s artwork. “Can a painting actually affect someone's attitudes toward anything besides painting?” (Baker) Quite simply the answer is yes; Grey’s paintings have caused me (and possibly others) to question the nature of the human spirit.

Baker’s conclusion lacks a well-composed thesis, as his final statement suggests that the reader see the artwork regardless of the meaning because Grey’s work is so different from contemporary art. McCormick on the other hand, concludes by discussing the scientific aspects of Grey’s work. He describes “Sacred Mirrors” as a “systemic web of existence that is structurally dependent upon the existential as well as the biological”(McCormick). This concept is a great explanation of the motifs prevalent in “Sacred Mirrors” and provides a clear, adequate conclusion to McCormick’s thoughts on the artwork.
Alex Grey’s “Sacred Mirrors” is piece that incorporates ideas of the human spirit as well as ideas of the natural world. Each author has a distinct and different (but not necessarily contrary) viewpoint of Grey’s work. Baker focuses on the distinctive style of Grey, which causes him to over analyze the small details and overlook the general conceptions of the work. McCormick is able to provide an adequate analysis of the painting through strict observation and context, as well as a clear and developed argument advocating Grey’s ability to intertwine the natural and metaphysical worlds to describe the objective and spiritual aspects of human nature.

Alex Grey’s “Sacred Mirrors” is piece that incorporates ideas of the human spirit as well as ideas of the natural world. Each author has a distinct and different (but not necessarily contrary) viewpoint of Grey’s work. Baker focuses on the distinctive style of Grey, which causes him to over analyze the small details and overlook the general conceptions of the work. McCormick is able to provide an adequate analysis of the painting through strict observation and context, as well as a clear and developed argument advocating Grey’s ability to intertwine the natural and metaphysical worlds to describe the objective and spiritual aspects of human nature.


Baker, Kenneth. "Grey's Anatomy." The Boston Phoenix [Boston] 13 Apr. 1982, sec. 3. Alex Grey. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Grey, Alex. Sacred Mirrors. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010. .
McCormick, Carlo. ""Stux Gallery"" Artforum Sept. 1986. Alex Grey. Alex Grey. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.

Decapitated Deer

Artist Coke Whitworth has an exhibit at the Ackland Art Museum in which different aspects of his home back in Zionville, NC are shown through an array of pictures taken by him in the Appalachian Mountains community. There is a particular picture that is quite hard to miss; the deer head. Through this photograph Witworth is documenting his family's culture and traditions by showing a typical sport played, local clothing worn and the common type of vehicle used by his family all with the use of different lighting and texture. The achievement of portraying this social goal is well achieved through his techniques of illustrating many aspects at once of his background.


The obvious focus of the photograph is the deer. Out of all the objects in the photograph this decapitated head is the clearest and brightest, drawing the most attention to it from the audience. The fresh, red blood dripping from its neck and smeared on its nose is attention grabbing and it draws the audience to focus on it by creating a distinction with the subtle camouflaging colors surrounding it. All the browns, grays and blues displayed in the men’s clothing and the ground add on to the contrast between these colors and the vivid red. The light stains of blood shown on the guy's light blue, long-sleeve button down jean shirt, although subtle, catch the audience’s attention and provide them with context clues that this man was probably responsible for the deer’s death and decapitation.


This man is also the only one that can be seen clearly, without any distortion of the image. The image of his clothes is so clear that even the wrinkles on his shirt are visible, disregarding the fact that he is the furthest away from where the photo was taken. The other two men on the other hand, are closer to the picture but the quality of their appearance and details on their clothing are not visible whatsoever. The most probable reason for this distortion is that the photographer wanted to emphasize the focus of the deer, but he did not want to completely exclude them from the picture so the audience could get a small glimpse at Witworth’s traditional Appalachian style of clothing and culture. The image’s composition is well played out, placing what is important in the middle with greater clearness, and setting the less important things blurred on the sides of the picture.


The photograph’s maintained clarity located in the center is portrayed not only in the deer’s head and the man holding it, but it is also seen in the ground where you can easily differentiate between dirt and pebbles. The grays and browns in the ground make up for a great background that emphasizes even more the importance of the deer’s head. Even though you can easily see the ground’s texture due to the photo’s clarity, it does not take away attention from the deer simply because it is in the foreground and there is less detail to focus on.


The photographer intentionally took the picture at angle where both the camouflage jacket and the pickup truck could be shown, either in the foreground or the background, so the audience could have a better idea about what it means to be from the Appalachian area. If, for instance, the photograph had been taken from the other side of the circle of guys the truck would have not been included in the picture and one less cultural attribute of Witworth’s home would have been excluded. Angles and positions of photos matter, and this rule is perfectly shown in Witworth’s picture.


If one were to guess what the focus of the photograph is, it would be pretty simple and obvious what the answer would be; the deer. Not only because its shape is clearly visible and not blurred like other objects in the photo have, but also because it is placed right on the center. The first thing one sees when looking at anything, like a painting or picture, is the center because this is usually the most important part of the picture. Every photograph has to have a point of interest, and for this picture that is the deer. The light, clearness and placement reinforce the idea and Witworth’s goal of documenting his family’s traditions and culture are portrayed with the photograph perfectly.